Review Model Teknologi Perguruan Tinggi Menurut Sudut Pandang Supply Chains Management


  • Ilham Albana Universitas Amikom Purwokerto
  • Irfan Santiko Universitas Amikom Purwokerto




Sustainable, Supply Chains, Management, Education, College


The community's need for higher education is very important. Given the regulations of UU No.234 u 2000 concerning guidelines for the establishment of higher education institutions, it is quite easy for foundations and institutions, several institutions are competing and interesting to establish universities. Higher education is currently an attractive business field. The existence of graduates in the community or the market will always be an attribute of the community's assessment of the original university. If the alumni are well absorbed by the market, the university will get a positive assessment. Every university has an interest in knowing the level of user satisfaction of its graduates as an important part of the evaluation and projections of the institution. Problems arise when graduates are not well absorbed. Many factors could be the cause. In a business, of course, you must look at it from the point of view of market needs, the same thing as higher education institutions. If you don't pay attention to the market aspect, it is certain that graduates are not well absorbed due to lack of quality. In this article, we will discuss the sustainability of business processes in higher education based on user reviews of graduates. The continuity of this business process using a supply chain model approach.


D. Galego, C. Giovannella, and Ó. Mealha, “Determination of the Smartness of a University Campus: The Case Study of Aveiro,” Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 223, pp. 147–152, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.05.336.

D. Al-Fraihat, M. Joy, R. Masa’deh, and J. Sinclair, “Evaluating E-learning systems success: An empirical study,” Comput. Human Behav., vol. 102, no. August 2019, pp. 67–86, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.004.

T. Bøe, B. Gulbrandsen, and O. Sørebø, “How to stimulate the continued use of ICT in higher education: Integrating Information Systems Continuance Theory and agency theory,” Comput. Human Behav., vol. 50, pp. 375–384, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.084.

A. Iglesias Rodríguez, B. García Riaza, and M. C. Sánchez Gómez, “Collaborative learning and mobile devices: An educational experience in Primary Education,” Comput. Human Behav., vol. 72, pp. 664–677, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.019.

M. Sailer, F. Schultz-Pernice, and F. Fischer, “Contextual facilitators for learning activities involving technology in higher education: The C?-model,” Comput. Human Behav., vol. 121, no. October 2020, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2021.106794.

E. Munastiwi, “The Management Model of Vocational Education Quality Assurance Using ‘Holistic Skills Education (Holsked),’” Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 204, no. November 2014, pp. 218–230, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.08.144.

A. Prisacariu, “New Perspectives of Quality Assurance in European Higher Education,” Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 180, no. November 2014, pp. 119–126, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.094.

Y. A. Adenle, E. H. W. Chan, Y. Sun, and C. K. Chau, “Exploring the coverage of environmental-dimension indicators in existing campus sustainability appraisal tools,” Environ. Sustain. Indic., vol. 8, no. June, p. 100057, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.indic.2020.100057.

O. Belash, M. Popov, N. Ryzhov, Y. Ryaskov, S. Shaposhnikov, and M. Shestopalov, “Research on University Education Quality Assurance: Methodology and Results of Stakeholders’ Satisfaction Monitoring,” Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 214, no. June, pp. 344–358, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.658.

X. Xu, Y. Wang, and S. Yu, “Teaching performance evaluation in smart campus,” IEEE Access, vol. 6, pp. 77754–77766, 2018, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2884022.

C. Heinemann and V. L. Uskov, Smart university: Literature review and creative analysis, vol. 70. 2018.

C. Makarewicz, Balancing education opportunities with sustainable travel and development. Elsevier Inc., 2019.

G. Chiniara and Rivière, “Adult learning and simulation-based education,” Clin. Simul. Educ. Oper. Eng., pp. 81–95, 2019, doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-815657-5.00007-3.

C. Maybee, Higher Education Teachers’ Views of Information Literacy. Elsevier Ltd., 2018.

D. Rutkauskiene, D. Gudoniene, and R. Maskeliunas, “Smart Education and e-Learning 2016,” vol. 59, pp. 291–301, 2016, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-39690-3.

S. D. Nagowah, H. Ben Sta, and B. A. Gobin-Rahimbux, “An Ontology for an IoT-enabled Smart Classroom in a University Campus,” 2019, pp. 626–631, doi: 10.1109/ICCIKE47802.2019.9004369.

Y. Chen, “IoT, cloud, big data and AI in interdisciplinary domains,” Simul. Model. Pract. Theory, vol. 102, no. January, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.simpat.2020.102070.

Z. Yu, Y. Liang, B. Xu, Y. Yang, and B. Guo, “Towards a smart campus with mobile social networking,” 2011, pp. 162–169, doi: 10.1109/iThings/CPSCom.2011.55.

I. Santiko, T. R. Soeprobowati, and B. Surarso, “Model review on the proposed new smart campus framework in achieving industry 4.0,” IEEE Access, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 67, 2021, doi:

I. Santiko, A. B. Wijaya, and A. Hamdi, “Smart Campus Evaluation Monitoring Model Using Rainbow Framework Evaluation and Higher Education Quality Assurance Approach,” J. Inf. Syst. Informatics, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 336–348, 2022, doi: 10.51519/journalisi.v4i2.258.




How to Cite

Albana, I., & Santiko, I. (2022). Review Model Teknologi Perguruan Tinggi Menurut Sudut Pandang Supply Chains Management. Journal of Information Technology Ampera, 3(2), 175–184.